CARE HOMES - to inspecting officers

[wee brian]

I think its funny that people keep asking for central guidance on when its OK to relax/vary the central guidance! How does that work?

The problem with care homes is always going to come back to staffing levels. Its a big failure that there is no guidance (other than the SHTM) that gives an indication of suitable ratios.

[Redone]

Could not agree with you more Brian, but even this could only happen if the industry was honest about the type of occupants actually involved,  a true residential home is a rare beast today.

[Richard Earl]

hi redone email me we are working with a very large carehome/shelteredhousing group at the mo and they have put a very good training package and risk assessment stratagy together email me i will fill you in

richard.earl@tecservuk.com

[Pip]

I think its funny that people keep asking for central guidance on when its OK to relax/vary the central guidance! How does that work?

The problem with care homes is always going to come back to staffing levels. Its a big failure that there is no guidance (other than the SHTM) that gives an indication of suitable ratios.

it works because there would be an acepted level of variations/choice,for example, for an inner room;or for an existing dead end.

[wee brian]

But then it would be central guidance - thus not a variation.

[Pip]

But then it would be central guidance - thus not a variation.

me thinks you are just playing with words.

[wee brian]

No I'm making a point - Dont ask for central guidance about varying central guidance - it is daft.

There are some options/ variations in adB for instance but that doesnt preclude somebody coming up with an alternative.

You can have flaxibility or prescription - you can't have both

[Pip]

No I'm making a point - Dont ask for central guidance about varying central guidance - it is daft.

There are some options/ variations in adB for instance but that doesnt preclude somebody coming up with an alternative.

You can have flaxibility or prescription - you can't have both

I wasn't after both, although there are a lot of people who do when it suits them.try 'acceptable alternatives'then if that sound better.it doesn't alter the basis of the question,which you seem to have misunderstood.

[wee brian]

If you did have a list of acceptable alternatives then can you do things that aren't on the list?

[stevew]

Must agree with wee brian.  

One of the principle advantages of risk assessment is offering the assessor a flexible approach to standards.   The down side is unqualified persons carrying out RA's.  I would go one step further and say potentially dangerous.  


All comments confirm my feelings that only a person competent in fire safety should carry out a FR of life risk premises.  The right person would have the level of knowledge and experience to look at each case on its own merits thereby only considering a variation if considered appropriate, without compromising safety.

[Richard Earl]

sorry i was out today redone but should be in on friday, my client is the H&S manager for a large care/sheltered housing group i will ask her if i can send you her email, she is breaking ground on the whole aspect of fra incare/sheltered housing in a big way.

[Pip]

If you did have a list of acceptable alternatives then can you do things that aren't on the list?

of course, but we base these on benchmark standards.if you want total flexibility with some one making their own judgement on what is safe, why bother with such guidance such as BS or DCLG guides?If you are basing competence on experience and knowledge-where then does that come from?Ultimately of course it is the courts that decide what is 'acceptable', reasonable etc, but as few cases have gone before them we are left to get on with it.
All I am saying is, if there was a benchmark standard that said something along the lines of, for example,' if a sprinkler system is installed to such and such a standard.......... certain elements would not be required to be fire resisting' (or what ever).This is no different than other options /alternatives given in Building Regs/BS/DCLG etc.
This would give BCO's/FSO's the confidence to be able and accept different options, instead of the adhoc way it is done at the moment.You must remember many of them will have to follow their employers policy, and employers are slow to promote/reluctant to accept a policy that it outside benchmark standards.
I am trying to promote  a particular client to install more sprinklers in buildings, but at the moment have very little to offer in terms of savings (they are self insuring).They have recently completed 10 large Resi care projects where they have put in a (non mandatory) near life safety system(the cost of making it a full 'life' system would have been minimal), but have taken the decision not to relax any physical measures because they do not want to take a chance without some form of central acceptance (Politics comes into it).So they have a very expensive property protection system that will have the spin off of making the home safer and easier to manage, but they won't rely on it,because they chose to have a policy of having them as a 'nice extra', and if they chose to stop maintaining it and switch it off, it has no effect on their procedures.

[wee brian]

Theres already stuff like that in the building regs (AD B) and in other guides.

Theres more now than there used to be but people will always explore other options.

If your argument isn't good enough to convince people - perhaps it isn't good enough at all.

[Pip]

Yes but it has'nt been looked at again in ages-hence the ad hoc uncoordinated approach.The government recently bemoaned the fact that 350 million was the cost of school arson last year,and want schools to fit sprinklers-but they wont provide any money,alter legislation or suggest ways of off setting the cost.thats why there is such a poor uptake-big organisations such as county councils will not in general do anything unless it is contained in recognised guidance.I think you will find that most people think sprinklers are a good idea-the problem is funding them.

[wee brian]

Part B has only just been published is that not recent enough for you?